Case 2501700/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Hall Respondent 1 Nissan Motor Manufacturing UK Ltd v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2501700/2024
- Decision date
- 19 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr G Hall Respondent 1 Nissan Motor Manufacturing UK Ltd
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr G Hall, brought complaints of unfair constructive dismissal and disability discrimination and/or disability related harassment. The case was heard at Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 30 May 2025 before Employment Judge Jeram, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Ms M Martin of Counsel via CVP.
The tribunal did not determine the substantive merits of the complaints. It held that the unfair constructive dismissal complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was practicable to do so, so that complaint was dismissed.
The tribunal also held that the disability discrimination and disability related harassment complaints were not presented within the applicable time limit. It found that it was not just and equitable to extend time, and those complaints were therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Dismissed because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit; the tribunal found it was practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Described in the judgment as disability related harassment; dismissed as out of time because it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.